BHARGAVI AMMA Vs. ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st defendant in a suit for both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that he has a right over the well, situated on the western side of his property and the defendants are trying to fill up the same.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, he purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 1981 and has been residing in the building therein. He purchased the property including a share in the well situated on the western side of the property. The defendants are residing on the western side of the property. The defendants have no right over the well. The defendants made an attempt to fill up the well for which they have no right. On the above facts, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.675/1997 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court- II, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') for an injunction restraining the defendant from filling up of the well on the western side of the plaint schedule property and from covering of any portion of the well in any manner which would contaminate or reduce the utility of the well water. Further, mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the wall around the well to its original position is sought for.

(3.) The defendants contended that the plaintiff has no right to use the well. According to them, the well is within the property purchased by the 1st defendant in the year 1979. During 1988-89, there was shortage of water and at that time the defendants permitted the plaintiff to take water from the well. However, the permission granted was subsequently withdrawn.